Invasive Species

Among many environmentalists, those two words evoke a gnashing of teeth and multiple expletives.  Hundreds of millions of dollars a year are spent trying to remove them from the environment. To my mind, that money is wasted futility, and the very term “invasive species” is spurious.

In an ever-evolving world, every species was, at one time, “invasive”. It replaced some other species that was not as well adapted to survive in a given environment. When folks speak of “saving the natural environment”, it only begs the question, “as of what date?”.

The Laurel tree in Panama is a good example. Growing straight and tall, with few side branches, this species produces a beautiful construction wood that is the local lumber mainstay. It is thought to have arrived with the Spanish in the 1500’s. Like the eucalyptus, it inhibits the growth of other trees nearby and is spreading rapidly in the rain forest jungle. Invasive or Native? Is 500 years enough to make a plant “native”?  I say “who cares?”.

If non-native plants are to be excluded from the environment, does that not include all of the non-native food crops, forests and orchards that we plant? Where do we draw the line? Why accept some and denounce others?

It is true that a new species also changes the environment around it, displacing both flora, fauna and even the micro-biome of the soil. But, this is what has been happening for eons on this planet. The landscape is constantly changing in response to evolution.

The designation “invasive species” is arbitrary and specious. Attempts to eradicate them are expensive and futile.